Archive for the ‘39. Chukas’ Category

In Parshas Chukas, Moshe sent emissaries to Edom, requesting that Bnei Yisrael traverse through their land on their way to Canaan, which Edom decline. Throughout the parsha of sending emissaries, the pasuk alternates between Moshe and Bnei Yisrael as having sent them (21:21 and onwards).
Rashi there explains that the pasuk is demonstrating that the leader is like the entire nation - שמשה הוא ישראל, וישראל הם משה, לומר לך שנשיא הדור הוא ככל הדור.

The Maharal points out a difficulty here. Rashi in Yisro (Shemos 18:1) writes that Moshe is equal to the whole Yisrael.
If this is so, how can we then extrapolate from Moshe to all leaders, that they are like the entire nation, if he was by definition different and greater than they could ever hope to be?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that Moshe being parallel to Yisrael isn’t literal. To illustrate: if he were to eat, they wouldn’t all have to bentch afterwards.

The leader is an emissary, a representative of his people. Moshe was more, in that his being equal meant his actions carried the same weight as the nation itself. Sending emissaries is an act of any leader as a representative, and it is in this regard that we can deduce from Moshe to other leaders.

There is an idea in Chazal that Moshe could have utilised “אָנֹכִי הֹ’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ” as a defence for Bnei Yisrael at the Golden Calf, in that it was only said to Moshe, in the second person singular, so  technically, Bnei Yisrael had not violated אָנֹכִי הֹ’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ.
How is this possible?

R’ Hartman explains that the Maharal says that the Patriarchs didn’t receive Torah because they had no nation to speak of. They were individuals, and individuals die. The Torah is eternal, so must be given to a nation, as nations do not fade and die e the way an individual does. An individual represents only potential, whereas a nation has actualised it.
So how could Moshe, an individual, say that he received it alone?

Moshe was a microcosm of Yisrael. There were the 600,000 people at Sinai, and then Moshe, who represented their essence.
Whatever made Yisrael into Yisrael at Sinai, Moshe already was. (This is why his grave is unknown). He was saying that the qualities of Yisrael at Sinai that he represented were not guilty of the Golden Calf, that the people were not the very selves that had accepted it, and as such only he could be said to have heard it, exonerating the Bnei Yisrael.
Moshe was the pinnacle of Yisrael, and represented all that was good in the people of those days. It was in that capacity that he received and delivered the Torah, and the people he represented were not the self-same people who were guilty of the Golden Calf, and thus, the people who succumbed at the Golden Calf ought not to be held guilty at all..

For all posts on Chukas click here

The Torah seems to make a big deal about the Ananei Hakavod (clouds of glory) and commands us to commemorate them with the holiday of Succos. There seems to be no big deal about the manna or Be’er  Miriam (well of Miriam). Why are the Ananei Hakavod given more ‘attention’ than the manna or Be’er Miriam, which were also great miracles?
There are three answers given to the above question:

1. Food and water are the barest of necessities for survival. Hashem took us out to a desert; of course He would feed us! Shelter is not crucial for survival and could therefore be classified as ‘lifnim meshuras hadin’ (above and beyond the measure of the law).

2. The clouds were exclusive. They were a special gift from Hashem to His Chosen nation, but only those who were worthy, benefitted. (The Erev Rav and people inflicted with tzora’as (leprosy)did not benefit)

3. The clouds, the manna, and the water from Be’er Miriam were all given as free gifts. The Jews complained and made requests regarding the water and food (ie-slav) but they never complained about the clouds. The clouds were the perfect gift.

The Chida says that these three answers are hinted to in Parshas Emor 23:43: לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי הֹ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:  In order that your ensuing generations should know that I had the children of Israel live in booths when I took them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתי – I, (Hashem) gave it to you as a gift.
אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל- I gave it to the Jews (not the Erev Rav).
בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם- I took you out of Egypt, so I was obligated to feed you.

For all posts on Chukas click here

Rashi 19:22 explains in the name of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan,  ויקחו אליך-משלהם כשם שהם פרקו נזמי הזהב לעגל משלהם כך יביאו זו לכפרה משלהם- And have them take for you: From their own possessions; just as they removed their own golden earrings for the golden calf, so shall they bring this cow from their own possessions in atonement. It is clear that Parah Adumah (the red heifer) is an atonement for the sin of eigel (the golden calf).

Another Rashi in 19:22 explains this concept further: פרה אדמה: משל לבן שפחה שטינף פלטין של מלך. אמרו תבא אמו ותקנח הצואה, כך תבא פרה ותכפר על העגל - A red cow: This can be compared to the son of a maidservant who soiled the king’s palace. They said, “Let his mother come and clean up the mess.” Similarly, let the cow come and atone for the calf.

The first answer seems to be clear and valid; why did Rashi feel the need to add the example as further elucidation?

The problem with the first explanation is that Parah Adumah was one of the few mitzvos that were given to us before the actual giving of the Torah. We were commanded in Moroh (as mentioned in tractate Sanhedrin), and the sin of the eigel occurred after the giving of the Torah.

One of the most famous philosophical questions in the Jewish religion is understanding bechira and yedia. In a nutshell: if God knows every move a human being is going to make, then how can we explain that every person has a choice between good and evil? If God knows in advance what’s going to happen, it would seem that the choice has been taken away from the person.

When addressing this query in his book, Moreh Nevuchim (guide for the perplexed), the Rambam says there definitely is an answer to this question. However, no paper in the world will suffice to adequately answer it. Therefore, we’ve got to have a blind faith that we still have a choice in choosing between right and wrong, despite God’s knowledge in advance of what we plan on doing.

The other Rishonim (e.g the Ramban) agree with the assessment of the Rambam and disagree on minor points concerning the explanation. (There is not enough space here to go into the explanation!) However, the common theme is that this is the most complex philosophical question concerning the Jewish religion.

Therefore, we can perhaps suggest that the question was how God could command us to do the mitzvah of Parah Adumah before we actually sinned with the golden calf. There should have been nothing to atone for yet, if we do indeed have our own choice of choosing not to sin. The answer is that this is a chok (a commandment which we don’t understand), since this truly is the most difficult concept in Judaism. Shlomo Hamelech (King Solomon) said, in regard to this mitzvah, ”Omarti echkama vehi rechoika mimeni“ (I wanted to understand but it was distant from me: I couldn’t understand).

For all posts on Chukas click here

In Parshas Chukas, 19:2, it says: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל - This is the statute of the Torah which the Lord commanded, saying, Speak to the children of Israel and have them take for you a perfectly red unblemished cow, upon which no yoke was laid.

Rashi states, זאת חקת התורה: לפי שהשטן ואומות העולם מונין את ישראל לומר מה המצוה הזאת ומה טעם יש בה, לפיכך כתב בה חקה, גזירה היא מלפני ואין לך רשות להרהר אחריה-  This is the statute of the Torah: Because the Satan and the nations of the world will taunt the Jews and ask the Jews about their commandments and subsequent purposes.  Therefore, the Torah uses the term decree. I have decreed it; you have no right to challenge it.

This answer seems to imply that there is no reason for this commandment of Parah Admuah; we simply keep it out of blind faith. Rashi 19:22 states in the name of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan that it atones for the sin of eigel (the golden calf). We are left with a question; is it a chok or to atone for eigel?

The Bikurei Avraham and Kehilas Yitzchak answer that all the different explanations for Parah Adumah (the red heifer) conclude that it atones for eigel, precisely because Parah Adumah has no reason. The sin of eigel was that the Jews threw off the yoke of heaven, so the equal and opposite would be to accept the yoke of heaven despite not knowing the reason.  Thus, both answers ring true - we don’t know the reason for Parah Adumah, and that’s why it atones for eigel.

The Panim Yafos says that the Gemara (Brachos 55a) writes that recalling a previous sin reopens the investigation and it comes under scrutiny again to some degree. This is what the nations of the world and the Satan accomplish when they ask whats the Parah Adumah is for. They know its because of the eigel; therefore we say it’s a chok.
R’ Chaim of Alexander writes that the pasuk says “leimor” (saying) twice-  וַיְדַבֵּר הֹ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר (And Hashem said to Moshe and Ahron saying) and זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה הֹ לֵאמֹר (These are the decrees of the Torah that Hashem commanded, saying).  He explains that it is so because of the two answers. If the nations of the world and the Satan ask, its a chok. If Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan is asking, then we have a great reason.

ראש חודש ניסן

Categories